V  IV 

o- 
(ft 


E 

433 


BANCROFT 

LIBRARY 

«• 

THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 


lr\ 


SPEECH 


OF 


HON.  --J.  F,  DOWDELL,  OF  ALABAMA, 


DELIVERED 


IX  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES,  MAY  10,  1854, 


or?  THE 


NEBRASKA  AND  KANSAS  BILL. 


WASHINGTON: 

PRIJTTED  AT  THE  CONGRESSIONAL  GLOBE 

1854. 


BANCROFT;  ' 
LIBRARY; 


NEBRASKA  AND  KANSAS. 


The  House  being  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  <. 
on  the  state  of  the  Union — 

Mr.  DOWDELLsaid: 

Mr.  CHAIRMAN:  I  desire  very  briefly  to  give  the 
reasons  which  will  control  my  action  upon  the  bill 
for  the  organization  of  territorial  governments  in 
Nebraska  and  Kansas.  However  humble  they 
may  be,  duty  to  my  constituents,  as  well  as  jus- ; 
tice'to  myself,  forbids  my  silence  upon  a  question  ; 
of  such  delicate  and  deep  importance  to  the  South, 
and  not  less  vital  to  the  peace  and  happiness  of 
the  whole  country.  I  trust,  sir,  that  1  may  be 
able,  as  I  certainly  most  earnestly  desire,  to  bring 
to  the  discussion  that  kindness  which  a  due  regard 
for  the  feelings  of  others  would  prompt,  and  that 
calmness  and  coolness  which  the  delicacy  and 
magnitude  of  the  subject  now  before  the  commit 
tee  eminently  demand.  Reason,  not  passion, 
must  characterize  our  deliberations,  if  we  hope  to 
reach  results  peaceful  and  satisfactory.  To  attain 
this  end  should  be  the  common  wish  of  us  all,  as 
it  is  certainly  the  sincere  desire  of  every  patriot. 

The  history  of  our  legislation  upon  the  very 
dangerous  subject  involved  in  this  discussion  is 
full  of  admonition.  The  wise  lessons  to  be  learned 
from  its  study,  should  at  least  incline  us  to  mod- ' 
eration;  should  teach*  us  to  refrain  from  the  taunt, 
the  jeer,  and  harsh  epithet;  should  guard  us  against  \ 
the  folly  of  crimination  and  recrimination,  which 
•serve  but  to  excite  passions,  to  obscure  the  reason,  \ 
H  d  cloud  the  judgment,  and  present  obstacles  to 
block  up  the  pathway  to  settlement,  thus  weak 
ening  the  social  ties  which  bind  us  together  as  one 
people,  and  without  which  bond  of  sympathy  and  ! 
affection  our  common  Constitution  is  powerless 
for  union  or  liberty.    The  great  interests  involved, 
the  character  which  we  sustain  to  the  country  as 
Representatives,   the  important   consequences  to 
follow  our  action,,  common  prudence,  and  sound 
discretion,  all   counsel   careful  deliberation,  and 
demand  coolness  in  the  formation  of  our  opinions, 
and  frankness  in  their  expression. 

With  feelings  of  the  utmost  kindness  for  all  sec 
tions,  and  a  sincere  desire  to  promote  harmony, 
and  achieve  the  greatest  good  to  our  common 
country,  I  engage  in  this  debate.  It  is  proposed, 
by  the  bill  now  pending  before  the  committee,  to 
organize  two  territorial  governments  for  the  re- 
«n*riiiflg  portion  of  the  territory  acquired  from 
France,  under  the  treaty  of  1803.  Over  all  this 
vast  country,  outside  the  limits  of  the  State  of 


Missouri,  more  than  ten  times  as  large  as  the 
State  of  Alabama,  the  restrictive  clause  in  the  Mis 
souri  compromise  was  extended,  expressly  for 
bidding  the  introduction  of  slavery.  The  pro 
posed  abrogation  of  the  eighth  section  of  that  act, 
containing  this  restriction — so  inequitable  and  des 
potic  in  character,  and  inconsistent  with  the  usual 
fairness  of  American  legislation — has  engendered 
all  the  bitter  opposition  encountered  by  the  bill  in 
the  other  end  of  the  Capitol,  and  which  it  is  cer 
tain  to  meet  with  in  this  House.  Yes,  sir,  it  may 
be  fairly  assumed,  that  but  for  this  feature,  no 
difficulty  would  have  been  experienced  in  ita 
speedy  passage  through  both  bodies. 

Let  us  examine  this  clause  a  little  more  closely. 
South  of  the  line  of  36°  30'  the  citizens  who  may 
purchase  the  public  lands  and  settle  the  territory 
are  left,  under  the  operation  of  this  law,  perfectly 
free  to  constitute  a  government  according  to  their 
own  will,  and  regulate  their  domestic  affairs  in 
their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  condition  that 
the  form  of  government  established  shall  be  re 
publican.  North  of  said  line  no  such  discretion 
is  allowed  by  the  terms  of  this  same  law.  The 
people  who  are  invited  to  settle  upon  that  portion 
of  the  territory  are  not  left  free  to  constitute  a  gov 
ernment  according  to  their  own  will,  and  regulate 
their  domestic  affairs  in  their  own  way,  subject  to 
a  like  condition,  only  that  the  form  of  government 
adopted  shall  be  republican,  but  are  tied  up  and 
bound  down  with  a  congressional  restriction,  with 
out  limitation  of  time,  reaching  beyond  their  ter 
ritorial  pupilage,  and  fastening  upon  their  sover 
eign  rights  after  they  shall  have  been  admitted 
into  the  Union  as  independent,  equal  States. 

Now,  sir,  let ine  ask  why  this  discrimination, 
which,  while  it  distrusts  the  intelligence  of  the 
North,  at  the  same  time  is  calculated  to  insult  and 
wound  the  feelings  of  the  South  ?  Can  sound 
reasons  be  given  for  such  mongrel  legislation  in 
reference  to  a  territory  purchased  with  a  common 
fund,  acquired  under  the  same  treaty,  from  the 
same  Government,  and  certainly,  if  rightly,  to  be 
"  disposed  of,  ruled, and  regulated"  in  pursuance 
of  the  same  Constitution?  Are  the  people  who 
may  chance  to  settle  above  this  arbitrary  line  to 
be  presumed  less  intelligent,  less  moral,  less  able 
to  govern  themselves,  to  choose  their  own  institu 
tions,  and  regulate  their  domestic  affairs,  than 
those  who  shall  settle  below  the  line?  If  not,whj 
then  refuse  equal  liberties,  rights,  and  privileges 


£ 


' 


4 


to  mem  r  Such  discrimination*  air,  iu  my  humble 
opinion,  is  not  only  repugnant  to  the  honor  and 
interests  of  the  American  people,  destructive  of 
'.he  rights  of  the  States,  and  at  war  with  the  genius 
of  our  free  institutions,  but  contravenes  the  first 
principles  of  equality  and  common  justice.  Can  it 
be  consistent  with  the  Federal  Constitution  ?  Sir, 
it  may  find  color  of  authority,  if  we  are  to  be  con 
trolled  by  a  precedent,  in  the  ordinance  of  1787, 
adopted  under  the  old  Confederation  for  thegovern- 
ment  of  the  Northwest  Territory.  And  even  that 
ordinance,  as  has  been  most  clearly  shown,  was 
adopted  in  violation  of  the  articles  of  Confeder 
ation.  The  concurrence  of  nine  States  was  re 
quired  by  the  articles  for  the  passage  of  such  a 
law,  when  the  ordinance,  as  it  is  termed,  only 
received  the  vote  of  eight. 

But,  sir,  in  vain  shall  weJook  to  our  Constitu 
tion  for  a  grant  of  power,  authorizing  similar 
legislation.  In  scanning  its  sacred  pages,  and 
scrutinizing  its  wise  and  well-guarded  language, 
I  find  no  line  of  demarkation  indicated  between 
sections  ;  no  parallel  of  latitude  or  longitude 
separating  the  North  and  the  South,  the  East  and 
the  West.  It  is  too  true  that  such  a  line  is  now 
to  be  found  marring  the  political  map  of  our  coun 
try;  but  the  hand  of  patriotism  never  traced  it; 
the  fathers  and  founders  of  the  Republic  did  not 
put  it  there;  under  the  pressure  of  a  panic,  when 
the  overthrow  of  our  newly-erected  government 
was  seriously  threatened  by  the  unhallowed  and 
unconstitutional  demands  of  faction,  the  conser 
vators  of  the  Republic  and  lovers  of  the  Union,  in 
the  vain  hope  of  purchasing  peace,  unfortunately 
submitted,  I  will  not  say  consented,  to  this  tem 
porizing  policy,  which  infringes  the  rights  and  cur 
tails  the  privileges  of  one  half  of  the  States,  and 
comprornits  the  safety  of  the  whole  system. 

The  anti-slavery  party  of  that  day  contended 
for  the  exclusion  of  the  slaveholder  from  all  our 
vast  domain  west  of  the  Mississippi.  A  sover 
eign  State,  by  the  consent  of  Congress,  had  pre 
pared  a  Constitution,  and  within  the  provisions 
of  the  Federal  Constitution  applied  for  admission 
into  the  Union.  Her  application  was  rejected, 
because  she  did  not  in  her  fundamental  law  pro 
vide  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  within  her  limits. 
In  this  state  of  things  a  member  of  the  Senate 
from  Illinois  brought  forward  a  proposition  which 
allowed  Missouri  to  come  in  the  Union  without 
restriction,  but  at  the  same  time  designated  this 
line  of  36°  30',  north  of  which  the  institution  of 
slavery  was  to  be  forever  prohibited.  In  an  evil 
hour,  under  the  sad  alternative  of  disrupting  the 
Government,  or  violating  the  compact,  this  propo 
sition  was  acceded  to,  and  became  a  law.  The 
momentous  question  involved  in  its  passage  filled 
the  heart  of  the  patriot  everywhere  with  alarm, 
and  fell  upon  the  ears  of  the  great  Jefferson,  in  his 
own  graphic  language,  like  a  fire-bell  at  night. 
With  fearful  forecaste,  in  a  letter  to  a  friend 
shortly  after  its  passage,  are  shadowed  forth  the 
dangers  which  he  apprehended  were  to  follow. 
These  are  his  words  in  reference  to  the  question: 

"  I  considered  it  at  once  as  the  knell  of  the  Union.    It  is 

hushed,  indeed,  fpr  the  moment.     But  this  is  a  reprieve 

only,  not  a  final  sentence.    A  geographical  line  coinciding 

with  a  marked  principle,  moral  and  political,  once  con- 

"ii  arid  held  up  to  the  angry  passions  of  men,  will  never 

Migrated;  and  every  new  irritation  will  make  it  deeper 

and  deeper." 

BSHK  ;       t  hi  '.ory,  sir,  has  '  Irated  that 


it>i«.uouiiJ^,o  ut    v-Vll    \,^~   "~v    ,ViiO.lj    ,_,..;-.. ~ 

less.    The  prophecy  may  y^t  be  fulfilled,  unless 
|  a  returning  sense  of  justice  in  the  American  mind 
|  shall  authorize  a  repeal  of  this  odious  act,  and 
enable  us  to  quell  the  dire  spirit  of  fanaticism 
which  has  carried  us  so  far  from  the  path  of  safety . 
The  policy  which  dictated  its  enactment, permit 
me  to  say,  was  very  different  from  that  which 
controlled  the  fathers;  for  it  not  only  contradicts 
the  letter,  but  does  violence  to  the  spirit  of  the 
common  charter. 

Let  me  not  be  understood,  sir,  as  saying  that  no 
i  lines  are  recognized  by  the  Constitution.     There 
|  are  lines,  and  strongly  marked  ones,  traced  by  it 
through  our  country — State  lines,  sir,  the  ram 
parts  of  republican  freedom,  separating  sovereign 
communities,  and  designed  to  bar  each  from  ag 
gression,  and,  if  sacredly  preserved,  will  forever 
confine  the  Federal  Government  to  its  small  and 
appropriate  sphere   of  specified  powers.     These 
are  the  only  political  divisions  indicated  in  the 
common  bond,  and  older  than  the  Constitution. 
i  Obscure  their  distinctness  by  unwarrantable  as- 
;  sumptions  of  power,  under  a  latitudinous  con- 
i  struction  of  that  instrument,  and  you  at  once  put 
|  in  jeopardy  the  sacred  rights  which  they  shelter; 
j  blot   them   out,  and   some   form   of  government 
|  might  survive  their  obliteration,  but  the  liberty  of 
i  our  people,  never. 

Not  so  with  this  sectional  line  of  36° 30',  which 

endangers  the  unity  of  this  great  country.     Erase 

j  it  from  the  statute-book  to-day,  and  no  shock  will 

|  be  felt  in   the  system.      Its  effacement  from  "the 

j  record  will  extinguish  the  hatred  and  jealousy 

j  which  its  adoption  engendered.     We  shall  return 

in  our  legislation,  by  thus  regarding  the  constitu- 

]  tional  equality  of  the  States,  to   the  true  spirit  of 

!  $ur  institutions,  restore  harmony  to  conflicting 

I  sections,  and  strengthen  the  bond  of  union  and 

brotherhood  between  our  people. 

I  take  it,  then,  that  this  restrictive  clause  in  the 
compromise  of  1820  is  a  naked  act  of  arbitrary- 
power,  unwarranted  by  the  Constitution,  ar.d 
wholly  indefensible,  impolitic, and  inexpedient.  It 
properly  belongs  to  those  who  affirm  it  to  be  con 
sistent. with  the  Constitution  to  point  out  whence 
the  power  is  derived.  I  have  yet  to  read  or  hear 
a  plausible  argument  going  to  show  its  compati- 
|  bility  with  its  provisions.  The  defense  is  rested 
j  upon  another  ground.  When  we  point  to  the 
!  perfect  equality  of  the  States,  a  principle  constitu 
ting  the  very  essence  of  our  free  government,  and 
recognized  and  guarded  in  every  part  of  the  com 
pact  between  them  disturbed  by  this  unjustifiable 
exercise  of  power  on  the  part  of  the  Federal  Legis 
lature,  what  response  comes  up  from  the  opposi 
tion?  An  argument  in  demonstration  of  the  jus 
tice  and  propriety  of  discrimination  ?  A  reason 
;  I  for  the  necessity  of  different  rules  of  action  ibr  one 
and  the  same  people  upon  a  common  territory  r 
No  !  we  are  met  with  the  reply  that  it  is  a  closed 
question,  that  we  must  now  go  behind  the  bargain; 
and  nothing  is  heard  but  grandiloquent  discourses 
upon  "  plighted  faith,""  sacred  compacts,""  sol 
emn  covenants,"  and  "  holy  compromises.'' 

Sir,  I  admit  the  sacredness  of  compacts,  but  not 

the   holiness  of  compromises.     When  faith  has 

been  plighted  in  righteousness,  neither  nations  nor 

i  i  individuals  can  violate  it  with  impunity.     For  the 

';•  inviolability  of  the  faith  plighted  by  the  fathers  in 


5 


iney  ihen  made  I  am  willing  to  abide  by.  The  par-  p 
ties  to  it  were  the  sovereign  States  of  the  Union.  Its  | 
language  is  the  language  of  command.     It  speaks, 
indeed,  "as  one  having  authority;"  challenging 
our  reverence,  and  exacting  obedience.    We  may 
not  renderit  "  void  and  of  non-efFect  by  our  tra 
ditions,"  nor  compromise  away  its  wise  provis- 
ions,  however  plausible   the    pretext,  or  appar-i: 
ently    urgent   the   necessity.      Let   compromise- 
makers  and  builders  despise  and  reject  this  stone,  I 
but  it  will  still  remain   the  head   of  the  corner.  ; 
Whilst  we  buiJd  upon  this  rock  we  are  safe.     We 
may  successfully  defy  the  winds  and  the  rains. 
Let  us  not  then  follow  the  example  of  the  foolish 
man  in  Scripture,  who   built  his  house  upon  the 
sand;  for  we  are  told  that  when  the  "rain  de-  '•• 
scended,  and  theiloods  came, and  the  winds  blew, 
and  beat  upon  that  house,  it  fell;  and  great  was 
the  fail  of  it  "     And  great  will  be  our  fall  if  we 
rest  our  hopes  upon   the  uncertain  sand  of  con 
gressional  compromises. 

Sir,  whatever  acts  of  legislation  which  may  have 
been,  or  shall  be,  passed  in  harmony  with  the 
spirit  and  in  pursuance  of  the  letter  of  this  great 
common  bond,  partake  of  its  sacredness  and 
authority.  But  no  agreement  between  legislators, 
however  specious  the  reasons  given,  however 
threatening  the  danger  to  be  shunned,  or  moment 
ous  the  issues  involved,  can  sanctify  a  law  incon-  •' 
sistent  with,  and  unauthorized  by,  the  Constitution. 
Neither  time  nor  circumstance  can  hallow,  nor  ; 
name  of  compact,  covenant,  or  compromise  impart 
sacredness  to  its  character.  Its  continuance  upon 
the  statute-book  for  long  years  may  not  plead  age  , 
in  extenuation  of  folly;  but,  like  hoary-headed 
iniquity,  should  serve  the  rather  to  increase  our 
contempt  and  abhorrence. 

It  is  in  this  light  I  am  forced  to  regard  the 
restrictive  clause  in  the  act  of  March  6,  1820, 
miscalled  a  compromise.  Mark  its  language: 

"  SEC.  8.  Jlnd  be  it  further  enacted.  That  in  all  that  ter 
ritory  ceded  by  France  to  the  United  Slates,  under  the  name 
of  Louisiana,  which  lies  north  of  36°  3d'  north  latitude,  not    I 
included  within  the  limits  of  the  State  contemplated  l>y  tin's  >i 
act,  slavery  and  involuntary  servitude,  otherwise  than  in 
the  punishment  of  crimes  whereof  the  parties  shall  have 
been  duly  convicted,  shall  be,  and  is  hereby,  forever  pro- 
hibited  :  Provided,  always,  That  any  person  escaping  into   j 
the  same,  from  whom  labor  or  service  is  lawfully  claimed  \ , 
in  any  State  or  Territory  of  the  United  States,  such  fugi 
tive  may  be  lawfully  reclaimed,  and  conveyed  to  the  person  j 
claiming  his  labor  or  service  as  aforesaid." 

lit  is  immaterial  to  my  purpose  -whether  the 
bill  including  this  obnoxious  section,  or  the  reso 
lution  introduced  by  Mr.  Clay  at  the  subsequent 
session  of  Congress,  referred  to  and  quoted  by  the 
honorable  gentleman  from  Georgia,  [Mr.  STE 
PHENS,]  constitutes  what  is  termed  the  Missouri 
compromise.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that  the  bill  which  j 
contains  this  very  act,  the  repeal  of  which  has  : 
been  made  the  subject  of  such  violent  denuncia- 
tion  on  the  part  of  the  Free-Soilers,  was  repu 
diated  in  less  than  twelve  months  after  its  passage; 
and  its  principle,  if  it  contained  a  principle  of  set 
tlement,  violated  over  and  over  again  by  those 
who  now  claim  for  it  respect  and  veneration.  It 
never  was  the  choice  of  the  slaveholding  States. 
Forced  upon  the  South  by  a  dominant  majority 
who  contemplated  a  still  greater  wrong,  ske  sub 
mitted  to  its  passage  as  the  less  of  two  evils,  and 
has  since  acquiesced  in  it  for  the  sake  of  peace 
and  repose.  Until  its  principle  was  abandoned  by 
Congress  in  reference  to  subsequent  acquisitions,  •'• 


she  was  content   to  remain  silent  An   mo  , 
reason.     Our   northern   brethren   denv 
much.  The  South  ought  never  to  have  submitted. 
Here  was  the  grievous  wrong  on  the  one  hand, 
and  almost  unpardonable  error  on  the  other.     At 
this  time  was  planted  a  thorn — the  cause  of  strife, 
iriitation  and  division.     It  must  be  removed,  else 
in   vain   shall   we  look   for  repose  in   the  body 
politic. 

This  line  of  36°  30',  and  the  injustice  and  ine 
quality  resulting  from  its  establishment,  has  done 
more  to  disturb  ourpeaceand  endanger  the  Union 
than  anything  which  has  occurred  since  the  form 
ation  of  the  Government.  It  was  the  first  indica 
tion  of  dissolution — a  rallying  point  for  geograph 
ical  parties,  for  contending  sections,  familiarizing 
the  minds  of  men  with  the  idea  and  possibility  of 
separation,  and  more  than  once  has  urged  us  to 
the  brink  of  this  sad  catastrophe. 

And,  strange  as  it  may  appear,  this  fatal  line, 
even  during  this  debate,  has  been  called  "  a  wall 
of  protection  to  the  South,"  "a  barrier  against 
the  inroads  of  fanaticism,"  as  if  there  could  be 
safety  under  the  shadow  of  unconstitutional  law. 
The  South  asks  not  now,  never  did  ask,  that  the 
Constitution  should  be  violated  in  order  to  protect 
and  preserve  her  institutions.  She  is  willing, 
always  has  been  willing,  to  rest  her  case — the 
security  of  her  property — upon  a  strict  construc 
tion  of  that  sacred  instrument.  Under  its  wise 
provisions  a  republican  form  of  government  is 
guarantied  to  each  State,  and  perfect  equality  of 
all  the  members  of  the  Confederacy  clearly  recog 
nized.  With  that  equality  preserved  and  ac 
knowledged,  the  South  is  safe;  short  of  this,  she 
should  not  be  satisfied.  We  need  no  other  wall 
than  this  to  fortify  our  rights  against  Federal  en 
croachment;  behind  its  strong  defenses  I  trust  we 
shall  successfully  resist  the  aggressions  of  fanat 
icism.  There  is  no  safety  in  leaving  the  strong 
timbers  of  the  Constitution  to  venture  upon  the 
frail  planks  of  capricious  compromises. 

This  much  revered  compromise  of  1820  not 
only  was  without  the  color  of  constitutional  au 
thority,  but,  sir,  it  openly  violated  a  solemn  treaty 
between  ours  and  the  French  Government.  The 
third  article  of  the  treaty  of  cession  under  which 
we  hold  the  Louisiana  Territory  is  in  these  words: 

"  ART.  3.  The  inhabitants  of  the  ceded  territory  shall  be 
incorporated. in  the  Union  of  the  United  St:  !<'s,  and  ad 
mitted,  as  soon  as  possible,  according  to  the  principles 
the  Federal  Constitution,  to  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  rights, 
advantages,  and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United  States; 
and,  in  the  mean  time,  they  shall  be  maintained  and  pro 
tected  in  the  free  enjoyment  of  their  liberty,  property,  and 
the  religion  which  they  profess." 

At  the  time  of  the  cession  by  France,  slavery 
not  only  existed,  but  was  recognized  by  law  to 
exist  in  this  Territory.  It  was  also  well  under 
stood  that  slaves  were  held  as  property  by  the 
inhabitants  to  be  incorporated.  We  then,  by  the 
terms  of  this  article,  pledge  our  Government,  not 
only  tc  admit  the  inhabitants  to  the  enjoyment  of 
all  the  rights  and  immunities  of  citizens,  but  in 
the  mean  time,  to  maintain  and  protect  them  in  the 
free  enjoyment  of  their  property.  It  cannot  be 
disputed,  sir,  that  this  term  "property"  included 
African  slaves.  And  yet,  without  the  modifica 
tion  of  the  treaty,  fey  and  with  the  consent  of  the 
proper  authorities,  against  the  wishes  of  the  peo 
ple  of  the  Territory,  and  in  a  willful  disregard  of 
the  rights  and  interests  of  one  half  of  the  States 


6 


of  the  Union,  what  does  Congress  enact?   Why,  ii 
sir,  upon  an  application  for  admission  by  a  portion  ; 
of    them,   according   to   the  stipulations  of  the  j 
treaty,  to  the  enjoyment  of  these  equal  privileges  ! 
and  immunities,  a  proposition  is  brought  forward 
here  to  destroy  this  property,  and  a  law  passed 
excluding  slavery  from  a  large  portion   of  this  ; 
Territory;  and  that,  too,  in  the  language  of  the  l 
restrictive    clause,  forever,  even    after  "its    sub- 1 
divisions  shall  have  become  sovereign  States.     If 
this  be  so,  what  becomes  of  our  "  plighted  faith?" 
Shall  those  who  violated  the  sacred  compact  of  i 
Union,  and  set  at  naught  solemn  treaty  obligations, ! 
charge  us  who  are  attempting  to  repeal  the  law, 
and  thus  repair  the  breach  and  restore  the  treaty, 
with  acting  in  "bad  faith?"     It  does  not  become 
covenant-breakers  to  insist  upon  the  performance 
of  contracts,  nor   aggressors  either  to  teach  or 
enforce  lessons  of  morality  and  justice.  i 

But  we  have  been  further  reminded,  in  order,  I  ;l. 
suppose,  to  frighten  us  from  the  line  of  propriety  j 
and  the  path  of  rectitude,  that  a  repeal  of  the  Mis 
souri  compromise  will  be  followed  by  a  dissolu 
tion  of  the  Union.     It  ia  indeed  disagreeable  to  1 
proceed  in  the  discharge  of  duty  at  the  hazard  of! 
pains  and  penalties.     But  it  is  not  for  those  who 
are  in  the  right  to  falter  from  fear  of  consequences. 
These  are  under  the  control  of  a  higher  power. 

The  unbounded  attachment  for  the'Union  which  | 
pervades  the  great   masses  of  our  countrymen, 
Las,  on  more  than  one  occasion,  caused  us  to  sub 
mit  to  infractions  of  the  compact  upon  which  it  j 
was  founded,  with   the  hope  that  the   "second 
sober  thought"  of  the  people. would  in  time  heal  I 
the  breach  and  correct  the  abuses  of  power.     It  | 
is  hardly  possible  now  that  an  honest  effort  to 
repair  the  damage,  and  return  to  the  true  princi-  ; 
.pies  of  the  Constitution,  will  diminish  that  attach- 
.ment,  which,  although  sometimes  inordinate,  is  ij 
.ever  commendable.     To  apprehend  danger  in  the  '' 
path  of  constitutional  duty,  is  an  imputation  upon 
the  wisdom  of  the  fathers  who  made  the  compact, 
and  a  reproach  to  the  firmness  and  intelligence 
of  their  descendants,  who  have  so  largely  pros 
pered  under  it.     The  destiny  of  this  great  Re-  n 
public,  fortunately  for  us,  is  not  in  the  power  of  ! 
fanaticism.      The  great  ^conservative   masses  of 
our  countrymen,  of  all  sections,  will  prove  equal  j 
to  the  demands  upon  their  patriotism  for  the  pres- 
ervation  of  thf.xt  Constitution  which  secures  their  ; 
rights  and  guards  their  liberties. 

As  much  as  we  of  the  South  disliked  the  com-  j 
promise  of  1820,  still,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  which,  | 
however,  may  sometimes  be  purchased  too  dearly, 
her  people  made  up  their  minds  to  acquiesce,  and 
abide  the  same  rule  in  all  future  acquisitions  of 
territory,  and  thus  put  an  end  to  sectional  contro- ; 
versy.     In  this  spirit  the  South  consented  to  the  i 
Missouri  line  through  Texas,  all  of  which  was 
slave  territory,  and  repeatedly  proposed  to  extend  ' 
it   to   the  Pacific  ocean.     The  proposition   was 
spurned  by  the  North,  who  positively  refused  to 
abide  by  the  principle  which  they  had  themselves 
established,  and  insisted  that  the  great  Missouri  i 
"  compromise"  contained  no  general  principle  of 
settlement,  but  was  intended  to  be  confined  ex 
clusively  to  the  Louisiana  purchase,  thus  leaving  ! 
the  main  question  of  difference  still  open  and  un 
adjusted.     Following   up  this*  decision   on   their  ; 
part,  when  the  recent  war  with  Mexico  terminated , ! 
with  a  large  addition  of  territory,  the  fanatical 


portion  of  the  North  endeavored  to  devote  the 
whole  of  this  valuable  acquisition  to  the  purposes 
of  free-soil.  The  South,  loyal  as  ever  to  the  prin 
ciples  of  justice  and  equity,  and  not  unmindful 
of  the  rights  of  her  neighbors,  modestly  contended 
for  an  equal  participation  in  the  enjoyment  of  a 
common  property,  won  in  part  by  the  valor  and 
chivalry  of  her  own  sons,  and  paid  for  out  of  a 
common  Treasury.  What  was  to  be  done  in  this 
emergency  ?  The  North  had  repudiated  and  aban 
doned  their  idol  of  1820.  No  settled  rule  was 
left  us  on  this  subject,  so  full  of  danger  to  the 
peace  of  the'country.  The  Territories  were  with 
out  organized  governments,  and  their  people,  con 
trary  to  the  spirit  of  our  institutions,  subjected  to 
military  rule.  Legislation  here  for  their  benefit  and 
protection  had  been  suspended,  and  discord  pre 
vailed  to  a  most  alarming  extent  thoughout  the 
land.  We  all  know  what  followed.  The  South 
was'  called  upon  to  make  still  further  concessions. 
Again,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  and  the  recognition 
of  the  great  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  con 
tained  in  the  bills  organizing  governments  for  Utah 
and  New  Mexico,  she  yielded  to  free-soil  the  great 
State  of  California,  commanding  the  entire  coast  of 
the  Pacific,  and  containing  an  area  of  nearly  two 
hundred  thousand  square  miles.  The  compromise 
of  1850  was  then  declared  to  be  a.  final  settlement, 
in  principle  and  substance,  of  the  sectional  contro 
versy.  I  did  not  support  this  compromise — I 
thought  we  yielded  too  much.  But  it  became  a 
law,  and  has  since  been  overwhelmingly  ratified 
by  the  people  of  the  Union.  The  very  ground 
of  acquiescence  was  the  settled  conviction  of  a 
final  adjustment  of  the  slavery  question  in  the 
Territories.  If  this  point  was  not  compassed,  it 
would  be  difficult  to  ascertain  wherein  the  South 
was  at  all  benefited.  Yes,  sir,  it  was  understood 
that  the  compromise  of  1850  superseded  the  com 
promise  of  1820;  that,  hereafter,  each  new  Terri 
tory,  when  forming  a  constitution,  preparatory  to 
admission  as  a  State,  should  corne  into  the  Union, 
"  with  or  without  slavery, "as  the  citizens  thereof 
might  determine.  The  South,  strong  in  the  confi 
dence  of  the  moral  strength  of  her  peculiar  insti 
tutions,  was  willing  to  stand  upon  this  principle, 
and  trust  to  the  Constitution  for  the  protection  of 
her  rights  and  privileges. 

But  it  was  gravely  stated  in  the  Senate,  as  if 
seriously  believed,  and  has  since  been  repeated  in 
this  House,  that  the  idea  of  superseding  the  act 
of  1820  by  the  legislation  of  1850  was  never  enter 
tained,  not  even  "dreamed  of"  by  the  wildest; 
that  it  was  but  a  lucky  "after-thought."  And 
the  author  of  this  bill,  the  honorable  Senator  from 
Illinois,  was  a  "  setter-forth  of  strange  gods;"  one 
that  brought "  certain  strange  things  to  the  ears  of 
the  people;"  and  that  "they  desired,  therefore,  to 
know  what  these  things  mean."  Well  might  the 
honorable  Senator  have  replied,  like  the  Apostle 
to  the  inquisitive  Athenians  on  Mars  Hill,  "Ye 
men  of  the  North  and  the  South,  who  approved 
and  acquiesced  in  the  compromise  measures,  I 
perceive  that  in  all  things  ye  are  too  superstitious. 
For,  as  I  passed  by  and  beheld  your  devotions  in 
1850,  1  found  an  altar  with  this  inscription,  To 
\  the  unknown  God.  That  which  you  ignorantly 
,  worshipped  then  now  declare  I  unto  you — the 
doctrine  of  non-intervention."  Yes,  sir,  in  the  bills 
organizing  governments  for  the  Territories  ot 
Utah  and  New  Mexico  the  principle  of  non-inter- 


yention  was  certainly  estabusneu.  It  remains  to 
be  seen  whether  the  uniformity  of  the  rule  shall 
be  regarded  in  its  application  to  Kansas  and  Ne 
braska.  .  „ 

I  will  now  recur  to  that  part  of  the  bill  under 
consideration  to  which  objection  is  chiefly  made, 
and  at  the  introduction  of  which  so  much  surprise 
is  manifested.  The  section  reads  thus: 

"Sec.  — .  That  the  Constitution,  and  all  laws  of  the 
United  States  which  are  not  locally  inapplicable,  shall  have 
the  same  force  and  effect  within  the  said  Territory  of  Ne 
braska  as  elsewhere  in  the  United  States,  except  the  eighth 
section  of  the  act  preparatory  to  the  admission  of  Missouri,, 
approved  Mar«h  6,  1820,  which  being  inconsistent  with  the 
principle  of  non-intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in 
the  States  and  Territories,  as  recogni/.ed  by  the  legislation 
of  1850,  commonly  called  the  compromise  measures,  is 
hereby  declared  inoperative  and  void  ;  it  being  the  true  in 
tent  and  meaning  of  this  act  not  to  legislate  slavery  info 
any  Territory  or  State,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom  :  but  to 
leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate 
their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States:  Provided,  That 
nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  construed  to  revive  or 
put  in  force  any  law 'or  regulation  which  may  have  existed 
prior  to  the  act  of  the  6th  of  March,  1820,  either  protecting, 
establishing,  prohibiting,  or  abolishing  slavery." 

It  is  a  matter  of  some  curiosity  to  trace  the 
cause  of  opposition  so  strongly  offered  to  this 
clause,  and  to  learn  the  reasons  for  objection  to  a 
proposition  so  fair  and  equitable,  so  just  and 
patriotic,  A  measure  like  this,  embodying,  as  it 
does,  a  cardinal  principle  of  republican  faith,  re 
garding  the  rights  and  privileges  of  all  sections  of 
the  Union,  promotive,  as  it  must  be,  of  harmony 
between  all  its  members,  commends  itself  with 
such  force  to  that  deep  sense  of  right  in  the  Amer 
ican  mind,  and  pleads  its  own  cause  so  eloquently 
to  the  patriotic  heart  of  the.country,  that  to  doubt 
its  ultimate  and  complete  triumph  would  be  noth 
ing  less  than  to  distrust  the  permanency  of  our 
Government.  I  confess  that  it  is  matter  of 
astonishment,  as  well  as  cause  for  regret  and 
mortification,  that  such  a  just  and  correct  prin 
ciple  should  need  friends,  at  this  day,  to  advocate 
its  claims  to  favor.  The  source  of  the  difficulty 
in  determining  the  question  can  be  found  only  in 
ihe  deep  anti -slavery  feeling  which  pervades  the 
northern  mind. 

I  mean  to  say  the  chief  difficulty  lies  here.  Not 
lhat  opposition  to  the  bill  is  confined  to  those  who 
are  affected  with  this  sentiment,  by  any  means.  I 
*.m  well  apprised*  of  the  fact  that  a  difference  of 
opinion  prevails  among  some  of  those  who  are 
mainly  agreed  upon  the  general  principles  as  to  its 
ultimate  effects  upon  the  institution  of  slavery. 
But  that  opposition  to  the  great  American'  prin 
ciple  of  self-goveroment,  which  it  certainly  em 
braces,  of  leaving  a  people  free  to  regulate  their 
domestic  policy  in  their  own  way,  within  the 
.imitations  of  the  Constitution,  can  be  fully  ac- 
-ouiJted  for  in  no  other  way  than  by  reference  to 
'.his  fanatical  sentiment.  It  is  needless  to  disguise 
the  truth.  The  secret  rests  here.  This  is  the 
*'  Illiad  of  our  woes."  In  conformity  to  the  d£ 
rnands  of  this  unhallowed  '  spirit,  which  sml 
ihreatens  a  disruption  of  our  Confederacy,  the  act 
restricting  slavery  was  placed  in  the  Missouri 
Compromise,  and  the  same  evil  spirit  not  only  re 
sists  its  abrogation  now,  but  unceasingly  endeav 
ors  to  extend  the  prohibition  to  all  the  cont- 
rnon  territory.  Once  concede  the  power  to  Con 
gress  to  legislate  slavery  out  of  a  common  terri 
er  onH  w'nar  hnrrio-  ,;jfn  ^  set  U  aajnst  it3 


unlimited  sway?  Who  shall  be  able  to  curb  that 
power,  and  say,  "  Thus  far  shall  thou  go,  and  no 
further?"  Will  you  tell  me  that  the  line  of  36O 
30',  or  any  other  line,  shall  not  be  pass 
because,  forsooth ,  it  is  a  compromise  ?  Why ,  air, 
has  it  not,  in  effect,  been  repeatedly  set  aside 
already,  and  can  we  hope  for  favor  in  the  future 
from  a  constantly  augmenting  majority,  hostile  to 
our  peculiar  institutions? 

Sir,  judging  from  the  history  of  past  Congres 
sional  legislation  on  this 'Subject,  to  whatever  con 
clusions  other  minds  may  come,  my  expectations 
for  anything  like  equality  and  justice  from  .this 
source  are  neither  large  nor  sanguine.  So  far  as 
the  question  of  political  power  is  concerned,  we 
are  now  in  the  minority  The  disparity  between 
the  political  strength  of  the  slaveholding  and  non- 
slaveholding  States  will  become  greater  and  great- 
,  er  in  favor  of  the  latter.  Our  fortunes,  to  some 
extent,  are  in  the  discretion  of  our  northern  breth 
ren;  and,  happily  for  us,  fortunate,  indeed,  for  the 
welfare  of  the  country,  the  great  State  Rights  Dem 
ocratic  party  holds  the  reins  of  government.  That 
!  party  in  the  North,  which  has  more  ^than  once 
i  thrown  itself  into  the  breach  and  checked  the  mad 
career  of  fanaticism — which  has  furnished  to  our 
national  councils  the  good  and  true  men  who  have 
1  firmly  stood  by  the  Constitution,  and  maintained 
the  equal  rights  of  all  sections,  consistent  and 
faithful  to  the  pledges  of  the  past,  nonv  rallies  to 
the  rescue,  ready  and  willing  to  cooperate  with 
their  brethren  of  the  South  in  the  settlement  of 
this  vexed  and  dangerous  question.  Their  patri- 
i  otic  devotion  to  the  cause  of  right  will  riot  be  for-' 
gotten  by  those  who  wish  well  for  their  country. 
The  South  has  yet  to  prove  herself  ungrateful  to 
the  friends  of  constitutional  equality. 

The  immediate  effect  following  the  passage  of 
this  measure  will  be  to  silence  that  mischievous 
agitation  in  these  Halls  which  has  so  often  dis 
turbed  our  quiet,  clogged  the  wheels  of  legislation , 
and  threatened  the  overthrow  of  our  institutions; 
to  transfer  the  discussion  of  this  question  to  where 
it  legitimately  belongs — to  the  people  whose  in 
terests  for  good  or  evil  are  to  be  affected  by  it;  to 
remove  the  disease  from  the  vitals  to  the  extrem 
ities,  where  agitation  may  expend  itself  unfelt  by 
the  great  center  and  heart  of  the  country. 

The  policy  of  the  majority  in  Congress  would 
necessarily  be  to  confine  the  institution  of  slavery 
within  its  present  limits.    Under  the  provisions  of 
this  bill,  it  may  be  extended  to  meet   the  wants 
and  wishes  of  those  who  shall  settle  the  new  Ter 
ritories.     He  must,  indeed,  be  blind  who  cannot 
;!  see  that  to   confine  slavery  to  its  present  area, 
I  would  ultimately  destroy  the  institution,  and  dis- 
|  rupt  the  Government.     Nor  would  the  time  be 
:  very  distant;  for  under  the  mild  and  humane  treat 
ment  of  the  southern  slaves,  that  population  has' 
grown  to  be  as  large  as  the  whole  population  of 
the  thirteen  Colonies  during  the   period  of  the 
Revolution;  and  in  the  third  of  a  century,  should 
they  increase  in  the  same  ratio,  without  assistance 
from  foreign  immigration,  must  equal  the  present 
entire  population  of  the  southern  States.   No  legis 
lative  enactments  can  prevent  its  extension.    The 
only  question  to  be  settled  is,  shall  it  take  place 
peaceably  or  violently? — in  conformity  with  the 
principles  of  our  association,  and  in  pursuance  of 
,  liberal  and  wise  legislation,  or  in  spite  of  arbi- 
*- iinba u;u:»: — -.    jt  ig  bt 


8 


believe  this  bill  not  only  contemplates,  but  will  j 
accomplish,  the  former,  that  I  am  induced  to  give  i 
it  my  support.  It  sweeps  from  the  statute-book  { 
all  foreign  legislation,  and,  under  the  limitations  of  | 
the  Constitution,  leaves  the  people  free  to  regulate  ' 
their  domestic  affairs  in  their  own  way, 

1  do  not  understand  the  Badger  proviso  to  alter 
the  intent  and  meaning  of  the  bill;  it  serves  rather 
to  explain  the  object  than  to  change  the  features. 
It  fixes  clearly  the  principle  to  be  faithfully  car 
ried  out  in  all  territories  hereafter  to  be  acquired — 
that  American  laws,  passed  and  approved  by 
American  citizens,  shall  control  their  destiny,  and 
r.ot  the  loose  edicts  left  behind  by  the  retiring 
foreigner.  It  substitutes  the  will  of  the  people 
•who  emigrate  thither  for  the  French  law  which 
allows  slavery  and  the  Mexican  law  which  dis 
allows  it.  It  opens  the  Territories  for  the  immi 
gration  of  every  class  of  our  people,  with  their 
property,  without  discrimination,  and  leaves  them 
free  in  the  choice  of  their  institutions;  not  making 
the  question  of  whether  it  shall  be  free  or  slave 
territory  to  depend  upon  the  contingency  of  pur 
chasing  from  England,  Mexico,  or  Spain. 

But  I  have  heard  objections  urged  to  this  mode 
of  settlement,  for  the  reason  that,  according  to  the 
decision  of  some  of  the  courts,  slavery  being  con 
sidered  a  creature  of  municipal  law  solely,  that 
the  absence  of  laws  for  its  establishment  and  pro 
tection  will  as  effectually  exclude  it  as  positive 
prohibitions.  «  That  some  of  our  courts  may  have 
so  decided  I  will  not  dispute;  but  that  such  a  con 
clusion  is  in  accordance  with  the  truth  of  history, 
I  most  positively  deny.  It  is  an  admitted  fact  that 
siavery  once  existed  in  all  the  original  States. 
When,  and  where,  and  by  whom  was  it  estab 
lished?  Point  to  the  positive  enactment  which 
brought  it  into  being.  If  such  be  the  fact,  the 
records  will  settle  the  question;  it  has  not  been 
done.  Laws  have  been  passed ,  I  grant  you ,  recog- 
r.izing  its  existence,  and  regulating  its  relations. 
The  custom  was  introduced  by  consent,  has 
grown  with  our  growth,  and  strengthened  with 
our  strength,  and,  under  the  providence  of  God, 
has  been  so  intimately  interwoven  with  the 
•frame-work  of  society,  that  its  eradication  is  be 
yond  the  reach  of  human  ingenuity  without  most 
disastrous  consequences.  This  is  not  the  place 
to  discuss  its  morality  or  policy.  It  is  outside 
of  our  jurisdiction.  The  Constitution  has  prop 
erly  left  it  to  the  disposition  of  the  communities 
where  it  exists.  Whether  right  or  wrong  in  prin 
ciple,  good  or  evil  in  its  effects,  is  not  for  us  to 
determine.  In  spite  of  all  that  may  be  said  against 
it  here  or  elsewhere,  history  discloses  the  fact  that 
it  has  existed  from  the  earliest  ages  of  the  world 
down  to  the  present  time.  The  Saviour  at  his 
advent  found  it  in  existence,  but  did  not  condemn 
it.  Both  He  and  his  apostles  recognized  the  re 
lationship,  and  defined  the  obligations  growing 
out  of  it.  When  the  Constitution  was  formed,  it 
existed  in  all  the  States  of  the  Union ,  or  nearly  all ; 


i  and  then ,  again ,  we  find  it  recognized ,  but  the  duty 
i  of  regulating  it  was  left  to  the  ''States  respect- 
I  ively,  or  to  the  people."  We  do  not  demand 
j  legislation  for  its  establishment,  but  we  do  require 
i  that  Congress  let  it  alone,  and  accord  to  all  our 
!  people  an  equal  participation  in  the  enjoyment  of 
i  the  common  property  of  our  country. 

The  bill  as  it  passed  the  Senate  contained  what 
I  is  known  as  the  "Clayton  amendment."  The 
i  design  of  it  is  to  confine  the  right  of  suffrage  to 

I  citizens  of  the  United  States.     It  is  proposed  by 
the   substitute   to    modify   this    amendment    by 

;  inserting  the  following: 

"That  the  right  of  suffrage  shall  he  exerctecd  only  by 

•  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  those  who  shalJ  have 

declared  on  oath  their  intention  to  become  such,  and  shall 

have  taken  an  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United 

States,  and  the  provisions  of  this  act." 

I  would  much  prefer  that  the  amendment  offered 
!  by  Mr.  CLAYTON  should  remain  a  part  of  the  bill. 

I 1  will  not,  however,  make  its  retention  an  indis- 
;  pensable  requisite  to  obtain  my  support.    Since  a 
j  different  policy  has  been  pursued  in  all  our  former 
!  territorial  legislation  without  detriment  to  thepub- 
|  lie  interests,  I  am  prepared  to  yield  my  preference 
!  in  this  respect  rather  than  endanger  the  passage 
j  of  the  bill. 

I  have  heard  it  charged,  and  it  is  believed  by 
|  many  to  be  true,  that  the  doctrine  of  what  is 
I  termed  "  squatter  sovereignty"  lurks  in  its  pro- 
:  visions;  that,  power  ia  given  to  the  Territorial 
:  Legislature  to  prohibit  the  introduction  of  slave 
i  property.  It  will  be  readily  perceived  that  this 
j  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  act  cannot  be  correct, 
I  since  Congress  cannot  be  supposed  to  grant  a 
j  power  which  it  does  not  itself  possess.  When  a 
1  people  shall  have  passed  their  territorial  pupilage, 
I  and  are  in  that  state  of  quasi  sovereignty  which 
|  enables  them  to  form  a  constitution,  then, and  net 
j  till  then,  are  they  invested  with  this  high  attribute 
i  of  sovereign  power  to  settle  definitely  for  them- 
!  selves  the  character  of  their  institutions.  Should 
I  unauthorized  legislation  on  the  part  of  any  Terri- 
1  tory  hereafter  look  to  the  exercise  of  this  ungranted 
I  power,  it  will  remain  for  the  judicial  tribunals  to 
i  settle  the  question  according  to  the  principles  of 
!  the  Constitution. 

Sir,  the  passage  of  this  bill  may  not  restore  the 
1  lost  equilibrium  between  the  two  sections  of  our 
I  Union,  so  important  to  be  preserved,  if  we  admit 
the  doctrine  of  congressional  intervention;  but  it 
!  will  go  very  far  to  avoid  the  danger  so  justly  ap- 
!  prehended,  growing  out  of  a  disparity  of  their 
I  political  strength.     Should  its  enactment  settle  the 
I  principle  which  it  embodies,  and  thus  fix  a  per- 
I  manent  rule  to  be  observed  in  the  organization  of 
i  governments  for  all  our  future  territorial  acqaisi- 
|  tions,  then  will  the  apple  of  discord  have  been 
j  removed  from  our  legislative  halls,  and  good  rea- 
j  son  left  us  to  hope  for  peace  and  friendship  be 
tween  our  people  and  a  glorious  future  for  ouf 
beloved  country. 


